Many of us studying in the Iyengar tradition, or any tradition of yoga for that matter, would like to negotiate the relationship between our physical practice and our personal spiritual life. If we teach, we are often asked if yoga is a religion, and most of us in the tradition simply say that it is not — that it is a physical practice. This is true in general for hatha yoga, and certainly for the Iyengar tradition which is within the broad category of hatha practice.
However, while there are spiritual elements that are usually not problematic for most people, there remain some sticking points.
We can limit our practice more or less to the physical postures (asanas), but the asanas are only one (the third) limb of the eight-limbed “classic o Raja” of Patanjali yoga that Mr. Iyengar used for the foundation for the mature expositions of his method.
The first two limbs deal with ethical practices (yamas), personal behavior (niyamas). The third and fourth are postures (asanas) and breath practice (pranayama). A religious — but also an inclusiove yoga teacher — Mr. Iyengar often said that practical people could begin with asana and progress to pranayama, but that we would not try to be teachers of ethics (the first two limbs) or, the meditation stages that form the last four limbs of Patanjali yoga..
This focus on asana and pranayama sets limits on what is normally encountered in studios teaching in the Iyengar tradition. Classes typically will focus on the physical asanas, perhaps progressing to pranayama depending on the teacher and the student. This is generally unproblematic; however, questions may remain as students deepen their practice.
For example:
Does the invocation to Patanjali indicate some hint of Hindu devotion or spiritual commitment?
What about the other chants that are used by some teachers?
Where is “God” or the concept of a higher power in yoga practice? For that matter, where is the “soul.”
and, most of all
Can we maintain our practice in the tradition without challenging or compromising our heritage tradition — the spiritual or religious tradition in to which we were born and raised, or that we adopted through individual choice?
The first two questions were discussed in an earlier post on the invocation to Patanjali. The third, about God, we can discuss elsewhere in the context of sutras that specifically mention a higher power.
The “God” sutras appear primarily in the first pada, or chapter, of the sutras. The second chapter, Sadhana Pada, is the one most emphasized in Iyengar teacher training — and even certified teachers are not expected to have a deep connection to the developed sections of the sutra that appear to invoke a higher power. This usually occurs early in the exposition of yoga practice in the virtues (niyamas) of tapas (burning zeal, determination), svadyaya (self knowledge and study), and ishvara pranadhana ( devotion to a higher power in one’s practice). This injunction is a warning flag to many students, but it is not presented as a theology or a theory about the specific nature of a higher power. It is as if it were taken for granted that yoga practitioners would see their practice as more than just a selfish, personal enterprise. It implies that yoga is in the service of something outside oneself. .
But what or who might that higher power be? On this, the sutras of Patanjali are silent. Patanjali does not take a position on that sort of theological matter. This ambiguity allows many interpretations — from an assumption of one or the other Hindu traditions, to an openness for any personal interpretation, or to an agnostic interpretation that is is not important or does not need to be specified further.
Most contemporary teaching in the Iyengar tradition is comfortable in this unspecified zone of personal belief and leaves individual practitioners to their own understanding of a higher power. I have never found a teacher in the tradition that tried to impose a particular theological position on students. However, there are instances where the chants, invocation or other elements may make practitioners uneasy or suspicious. So the question might be: “What did Mr. Iyengar do?” This is the fourth (highlighted) question from above — that of negotiating our heritage beliefs and individual spiritual choices with a practice in Iyengar yoga. For this, I will use recollections of teachings by Mr. Iyengar and discussions with other yogis who been alert to these problems (that is, most teachers and advanced students).
I cannot claim a deep personal knowledge of Mr. Iyengar — except through two trips to Pune, a fairly active reading of his writings, and discussions with teachers and other practitioners. My recall and interpretation may be just my own, but I am using it as a reflection for a preliminary, if superficial, look at what I believe is a workable position.
Mr. Iyengar has provided several answers by personal example and in his teaching:
- On the two occasions that I was privileged to study at the Iyengar Institute in Pune (RIMYI) there were local members of the Indian community of Hindu, Moslem and Parsi beliefs. There were no doubt Buddhists, Christians and others, as well, but nothing in the classes or practice encouraged this sort of self-identification — it was simply not an issue. If you did not wish to chant the Invocation to Patanjali, or recite the sutras — you simply did not. In the classes for foreigners, there was a tremendous diversity of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, body type, religion, and many other facets of identity that were all respected in the training center. Of course there were agnostics and atheists of all traditions present in the Pune classes as in studios in the United States as well. In Pune, laziness and inattention were not tolerated — but personal beliefs were tolerated in tremendous diversity.
- The only devotional icon I can recall in the Pune training hall was a statue of Patanjali, the historical figure credited with the codification of yoga some 2,000 years ago. Though it was said that the Iyengar family had a devotional altar on parapet high above the studio, that was a family matter and was never discussed by the Iyengar family in classes and never mixed with the practice of yoga.
- Commentators like Edwin Bryant and Kofi Busia have emphasized that Mr. Iyengar was a Visnaivite, in the lineage of Ramanuja (as was his guru Krishnamacharya,and his brother-in-law, Krishnamacharya’s son Desakachar). We know something of this from people who have made a special inquiry, but this devotional practice never intruded on the practice of yoga and, so far as I understand, was known only to a few students with an interest in these matters. Otherwise it was unspoken. There are photos of Mr. Iyengar wearing the marks of Vishnu devotion on his forehead, but he did not do so at any time I saw him in the Pune studio. That was a private matter of his own devotional practice and spiritual identity. As in 1. above, students and practitioners in many spiritual traditions were welcomed in his studio in accordance with Mr. Iyengar’s injunction that yoga was a “universal culture” that cut across all other forms of difference among people
- Certified instructors in the Iyengar tradition sign a statement of ethical behavior and agree not to “mix methods.” However, this injunction does not refer to religion or personal belief — it refers to the Iyengar methodology of teaching and requires that we not mix it with, say, “yogalates” or other hybrid fitness systems. It does not specify a spiritual system, but only a teaching methodology.
- Students and teachers who ask about their heritage practices are usually told to worship as they wish and to bring that spiritual energy to their yoga practice. In short, the Iyengar legacy discourages using hybrid teaching methods, but does not have anything to say about the nature of religious beliefs. It it possible that some teachers themselves may not be as meticulous as Mr. Iyengar in maintaining a separation. In these cases, practitioners who find discomfort in the way a teacher manages this in the classroom are free to find another teacher,
A few years there was a law suit by religious groups in the Encinitas school district of California. They objected to the teaching of yoga in the schools based on a belief that it covertly brought Eastern religion into the schools. They were supported in this by various religious institutions and by an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed by a “Harvard religious scholar.” The scholar was apparently a graduate of Harvard, although the credentials were a bit difficult to track down. His argument that “yoga is a religion” was based on a reading of Patanjali’s Sutras, emphasizing the sutras that seem to speak of God.
His argument was that the Sutras were the “Bible” of yoga, and thus in contradiction with any other holy document or Bible. There were many points of contention about this argument, including the well-known fact that the sutras are a codification of yoga practice dating back 2000 years, and are not a mandatory or canonical source for today’s practitioners or teachers. The Westerners I know tend to view the sutras as a guide to practice, but in no sense a bible. There does remain, though, the frequent reference of isvara in the sutras.
The translation of translation of the Sanskrit term “ishvara,” which is rendered by translators as “God,” but may also be translated as “Lord” or “higher power” — or yet other terms for a belief in a being that is higher than oneself. Again, It is true that some English translations, translate “ishvara” as God, but that is a translator’s convention (and bias) — and not very solid grounds for a lawsuit in California 2000 years later. It does not define a theology in the religious sense. In most contexts of the sutras (see a later post on this), it refers to the enriching power of having a spiritual source or higher power — of believing that one’s practice is not just for oneself, but related also to a goal outside oneself. I choose to believe that world “outside” myself is the community of yoga, the community in which I live, and anyone who might benefit from the practice of yoga.
For me that higher power does not refer to a specific concept of God. That is my own accommodation with the apparent theism in the sutras. But there is a long tradition in my approach that is supported by the fact that, unlike holy scriptures in religious traditions, there is virtually no description or normative concept of what such a higher power might be.
This is not to say the “God,” or the Lord, is not described in other documents on the yoga reading list. Some yogis find a more specific description of Vishnu in other documents (like the Bhagavad Gita), but that is another matter. Many Western yogis I know love and respect the ethical nature of the Bhagavad Gita, but none I know are Vishnaivites or Hindus of any sort. At any rate, it seems far-fetched to believe that contact with the spiritual poetry of one tradition challenges or compromises your own religious training or beliefs. I have never read the Bhagavad Gita or discussed it in a group where it was used to teach a non-inclusive, Hindu, notion of theism.
For these and other reasons the lawsuit in Encinitas was not successful. It was ruled in court that yoga did not smuggle an “alien” of non-Christian religion into the schools. But that does not end the matter –its underlying complexity is echoed elsewhere, including in India where various concerned groups have opposed yoga in the schools on the grounds that it was the wrong spiritual system, or godless, or yet some other infraction. Some Indian opponents were from anti-religious groups who feared a creeping religious intrusion disguised as asana/pranayama practice. Oddly, both religious and atheistic groups in India shared the same suspicion that yoga was smuggling a theology into the schools.
There are similar discussions and conflicts over the teaching of meditation in prisons, where some traditional chaplains object to the practice as “buddhist” and oppose it on religious grounds.
These important discussions are held in religious and secular societies throughout the world, and must be negotiated in one society and school system after another. I think it valuable for a politcial society to continually to reexamine and define its values. It is not a trivial question in any society to be concerned and vigilant about the relationship between church and state.
However, it is possible for yoga practitioners to be introspective about the meaning of these questions in their own practice The key question is “How should I practice,” and “Is there a conflict with my core beliefs?”
While some religious groups and individuals are not tolerant of yoga, practice in the Iyengar tradition is tolerant of all religious belief. It does not seek to interfere with individual spiritual values. It is more accurate to say that it places a method of practice in the hands of practitioners — a method that is compatible with a wide variety of spiritual beliefs. Virtually all teachers in the Iyengar tradition have this tolerance, and if you should find one who does not, there are many other qualified teachers. It is wise to choose teachers who are skillful and competent, committed to students’ progress, and tolerant of all manner of diversity in their teaching.
One last issue: If there were a “bible” of hatha yoga, it would make better sense to nominate a book like Hatha Yoga Pradipika, a codification of body-related practices that probably dated from the 15th century (that is, 1400 years after Patanjali). Many Westerners will find physical and breath practices described in that book that are familiar, though some of the yoga cleansing practices (called shatkarma) may seem alien to a modern Western practitioner. The point, however, is that hatha yoga was codified hundreds of years after Patanjali’s sutras. Elements of the hatha system of reaching the mind and spirit through bodily practice are present in Patanjali’s sutras, but the hatha mainstay of asana practice appears in only four of 196 sutras. Patanjali does not describe a single physical posture, and only dealt with asana in passing. Pantanjali enjoins the practitioner to be comfortable, sit on a deerskin, use soft grass for a cushion, and sweep out the insects. By contract, postures and practices are cataloged meticulously in the Hatha Yoga Pradiptika. This codification came some 800-1400 years after Patanjali and, in the case of B.K.S Iyengar’s Light on Yoga — some 2000 years later.